explain-my-wallet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool takes optional hints and returns checks to run, but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. For a diagnostic tool, this is adequate but not thorough; more explicit safety info would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds contextual value about optional inputs and expected output. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, few annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, inputs, and the nature of the output ('checks you can run yourself and what the results mean'). However, it could be more explicit about the return format or example checks. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the context 'Takes optional hints about your setup,' which aligns with the parameters but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Explains what wallet(s) you have access to... what chain(s) they work on, and what each one is capable of.' It uses a specific verb ('explains') and resource ('my-wallet'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get-a-wallet' (obtain) and 'what-is-a-wallet' (general definition) by focusing on the user's specific environment and capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to understand your wallet setup), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusions or context-specific guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.